A Place at the Table

Analyzing the odds on who will go to bowl games is a hot topic in most of the country, but here in the D.C.-Virginia politicopolis, football pools are often trumped by cabinet appointment speculations. While Joel Klein and Colin Powell’s names have been bouncing around as likely candidates for Secretary of Education, there are rumors that Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond, President Elect Obama’s education transition team leader, is a serious contender for the Cabinet seat herself.

There’s no doubt that, as Chancellor of New York City Schools, Joel Klein has made progress in transforming New York’s floundering education system. His Children First restructuring has focused on leadership, empowerment, and accountability and the schools have benefited from his willingness to be a results driven CEO in a school system that had become mired in a dysfunctional organization and inconsistent instruction. But Mr. Klein has a relatively short record of six years in education--make that seven, since he taught sixth grade math for a while during a leave of absence from Harvard Law. As a native New Yorker and former student of NYC public schools his knowledge may be deep and personal, but his experience is very limited in range and what he has learned about schools in New York City may not be replicable or appropriate in Sausalito, California or Deep Hollow, Kentucky. Klein is, by training and experience, not an educator but a lawyer. Since he was highly successful in the Justice Department during the Clinton administration, it seems that he would be better suited for the short list for Attorney General. Of course, Eric Holder is the front runner for that job, but I’d prefer not to have Secretary of Education be a consolation prize.

What about Colin Powell then? Certainly the appointment of a man who could have been a contender for the Republican nomination would be a demonstration of bipartisanship. Mr. Powell is a remarkable man of enormous personal integrity and the American people trust him. As former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State, he was prudent, practical and forthright under difficult circumstances at home and abroad. But while Mr. Powell is a gifted and venerable statesman who has lent his support to education efforts, education is not his field of expertise. Why not use his proven skills? If Senator Clinton is the front runner for Secretary of State (and she seems to be), then he's not likely to reprise that role. So why not ask Gen. Powell to take on Homeland Security, a troubled department with a tarnished image where his credibility and strategic skills would inspire confidence?

By now, teacher readers, you can probably guess who I would recommend if Mr. Obama called and asked, “So, Susan Graham, what advice might you offer me about appointing a Secretary of Education tasked with impacting student learning across America?" I’d tell him, “Well sir, we haven’t done so well with economists or corporate CEOs running education. Personally, I don’t really think we need more career politicians, and you know what they say about all the lawyers. This may seem like a wild and crazy idea, but what about an expert in education for Secretary of Education? What about that brilliant lady who’s already part of your team, Linda Darling-Hammond?”

I am sure I am exposing my naiveté, but I would have thought this an obvious choice. After reading this week’s lead Education Week’s story, I guess not. Dr. Gerald Sroufe, Senior Advisor to the American Educational Research Association told Ed Week that Darling-Hammond would be an "unconventional choice" -- that past education secretaries have been "former governors or others with significant administrative and political experience." Sroufe did go on to say that despite her "unorthodox background" (an education scholar and researcher), Darling-Hammond "would be a capable Cabinet secretary."

As middle school kids say, “Well, duh!” What's wrong with trying out an education scholar? Darling-Hammond hasn't led a cloistered academic life, after all. She was the Executive Director of the National Commission for Teaching and America's Future. She co-authored What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future. This document and the research upon which it was built has been the foundation of much teaching quality reform in the past decade. She was a leader in the successful effort to create a national certification for accomplished teaching, and she is deeply involved and highly respected for her work in teacher preparation, teacher leadership, school reform, and education policy.

Her commitment appears to be to assuring that every child has well-prepared and effective teachers. She hasn’t held political office nor does she appear to have an agenda connected to a corporate education product, service provider or school reform "brand." She doesn’t see classrooms where teachers and their students go about the business of teaching and learning as problems to be fixed, but places where processes need to be improved and people need to be supported.

Maybe that is unconventional, but maybe it’s about time we put someone in the Secretary job who understands not only the challenges students and teachers face every day in the classroom but has spent a lot of time thinking about what it will take to create a teaching profession fully prepared to meet the demands of the 21st century.

Dr. Darling-Hammond understands something many school reformers do not. She knows that a sizeable percentage of today's teachers are highly competent, strongly committed to the children they serve, and impatient themselves for smart school and teaching reforms. She sees teachers as potentially powerful catalysts for positive change. So do many of us who do the difficult work of schooling every day. We've love to team up with her.The question should not be "Why Linda Darling Hammond?" My question is "Why not ?"

Posted by Susan Graham at 5:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

In preparation for a meeting I attended this week, I was asked to read Gary Gordon’s Building Engaged Schools: Getting the Most Out of America’s Classrooms.It seems an easy book to agree with when Gordon says things like

School leaders and communities must recognize that the abilities of teachers, principals, and other school personnel are paramount to the success of students. No longer can we give lip service to the importance of talented educators while behaving as if they are interchangeable parts in a machine. Teacher talent clearly affects students' outcomes more than any curricular change or prescribed instructional technique. School leaders should start with the realization that their schools will be no better than the people who work with students.

Oh yeah, I’m all about that! Teachers have known this for a long time. Gordon’s premise is that the critical factor in success is one that has proven true in the business world. Instead of focusing on identifying weaknesses and attempting to eliminate them, Gordon maintains that success comes when we identify talent and build on strengths. Does this sound “touchy-feely” to you? Would you be surprised to know that the publisher is Gallup Press and that Gordon is VP of The Gallup Organization’s Education Division? Or that Gallup offers a full line of consulting products and services in the education market?

Because it matters so, Gallup has joined others in attempting to measure what good teaching looks like so it can be replicated. I was intrigued by how a company that most people associate with public opinion polling and data analysis is using quantitative research to try to get at the intangibles of teacher quality for both informing teacher selection and shaping school improvement. It is certainly a valid quest. At the same time, what research could possibly have more variables? Imagine attempting to disaggregate specific aspects of teacher knowledge, skills and dispositions and measure their impact on rooms full of diverse children in diverse locations being taught a variety of disciplines?

Gallup's research indicates that teacher engagement is the critical factor. Knowing good teachers are the single most important factor in student learning, and that teachers are also single largest line item in the education budget, Gordon states:

Engagement represents fertile ground for development; Gallup estimates that low productivity among actively disengaged employees costs the U.S. economy about $300 billion a year. How much of that cost could be eliminated if companies were able to recruit more people who are prone to engagement because their education has given them a solid foundation of self understanding and a thirst for experiencing flow?

Now I’m a little concerned. Does fertile ground for development mean ripe opportunity for increased profitability? As a Career and Technical Educator, I have no problem with connecting education outcomes to workforce development, but does this imply that PreK-12 is going to be asked to take responsibility for all the disengaged workers in America? Have we all agreed that the workplace is the critical frame in which self understanding and a thirst for experiencing flow should be measured?

I know absolutely no one who would argue with the idea of Getting the Most Out of America’s Classrooms. Maximizing return on investment is the culmination of efficiency, efficacy, and economy. But before we commit wholehearted to a consulting firm's vision of getting the most, shouldn’t we spend a little more time defining exactly what we want to get the most of, what we're willing to invest to get it, and what we're going to do with it once we get it?

Posted by Susan Graham at 9:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In my community, our schools are our polling places, so Tuesday was a teacher workday. I had just arrived when Gheorge came by my room. Gheorge is a new citizen, and the week he took his oath of allegiance, we all celebrated with him. Back in Romania, Gheorge taught violin at the school where he worked. In our school he empties the trash and sweeps.

"Mrs. Graham, I am here to tell you, today I am a real American. Today I vote for President of my new country, because here in America we are free and we are not afraid. God bless America, Mrs. Graham!

This election was destined to change history, regardless of the outcome. A man of mixed race born in Hawaii, and a mother of five living in Alaska, ran for President and Vice President of the United States of America. Alaska and Hawaii weren't states when I started school. I don't divulge my politics, but I suppose I just gave away my age; so it won't surprise you when I share the song that has been stuck in my head this week. Back in the '60s Momma Cass Elliott sang:

There's a new world coming
And it's just around the bend
There's a new world coming
This one's coming to an end

There's a new voice calling
You can hear it if you try
And it's growing stronger
With each day that passes by....

Some good people I know hear those words and celebrate the fulfillment of a dream.

Some other good people I know hear those words and worry that we've lost our bearings.

Like Gheorge, they are all real Americans -- whether they see a new day as a challenge to be overcome or an opportunity to be seized. America was built on the belief that the world we live should and can be changed in an orderly and civil manner. We have common goals even when we differ on how to accomplish those goals. It is inevitable that a "new world is coming," and aren't we privileged to have the opportunity to help shape it?

As Gheorge puts it each day when he arrives to clean up my room: "God Bless America!"

Posted by Susan Graham at 10:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Every year thousands of people come to Fredericksburg and the surrounding counties of Spotsylvania and Stafford to walk the grounds of Civil War battles. In 2008, our community finds itself in the unexpected position of a political battleground. In case you’ve been living in a cave, Virginia is one of the hotly contested “swing states” and our area, at the southern tip of the Washington, D.C. metroplex, may well be the hinge on which the Virginia electoral votes swing. On September 27th Barack Obama and Joe Biden visited the campus of the University of Mary Washington. Last week, on October 28th, Sarah Palin spoke in Hurkamp Park.

In a spirit of fairness, God let it rain both events. However, that rain didn’t dampen the enthusiasm or water down the intense partisanship of anyone. I know because on Friday night, we dined with Democrats and on Saturday, we partied with Republicans. But my bridge group has agreed that it would be a bad idea to hold the regularly scheduled first Tuesday night of the month session, and my book club has called a ceasefire on candidate bashing. Here on Main Street, in a small but diverse community, politics can get personal and sometimes prickly.

We saw the same tension at school this week as our students voted in a mock election. Each morning during announcements our principal reminded students to be respectful of the opinions and positions of their classmates and their classmates’ families. Political advertising encourages the public to vote based on a candidate’s “likeability” or to vote against the opposition candidate based on “dastardly former acts or future plots.” It’s not surprising that a great many students think of a Presidential election as a popularity contest or cast it in the athletic competitive framework of “us” and “them.” Enthusiasm and emotions are running high and students are looking for validation of their opinions from their teachers.

I won't tell my students how I am going to vote, nor will most of my colleagues. Just as in most communities, teachers are expected to be politically neutral during the school day. Some teachers choose to make their classroom a politics-free zone. While I understand their desire to keep politics out of the classroom, I think it is important that students understand that in reality, everything in their lives is touched by the political process. When they ask who I’m voting for, I won’t answer, but I will engage them in discussion. Why do they think I might support one candidate or the other?

I want them to talk about issues rather than personalities. And, if issues reflect the concerns of the people, shouldn’t both candidates be talking about the same topics? Instead of trying to shape the issues, shouldn’t candidates be addressing how they would shape solutions? Wouldn’t that be more productive than talking about each other? I hope that I can help my students understand that elections, regardless of what the advertisements tell us, are not so much about good guys and bad guys, they are about workable plans to address the needs of society equitably and efficiently.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

It’s not a politically neutral statement, and we cannot teach American History, American Government or American Literature -- or a host of other courses -- without talking about these principles on which our nation is founded. As teachers we are given the awesome responsibility of providing students access to the knowledge of past, the skills of communication, and the habits of critical thinking necessary to participate in self governance. I want them to believe in the good intentions of their fellow citizens. I hope they will understand that they are inheriting the privilege and obligation to keep sorting out what those words mean in today's world, and to move them from ideas to realities.

As for how I vote, I will remain a political enigma.
You decide........

Posted by Susan Graham at 12:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)